U.S. Elections: American Hitler 2016

[Kalbear]

Well, the law wasn't designed to stop either negligence or whistleblowers - it was designed to stop people like Petraeus - or worse, people who knowingly gave secrets to other countries. 

The law is also super out of date as far as tech goes.

[maarsen]

I have just started reading a book called Code Warriors about the beginnings of the NSA.  In the first chapter alone are enough major screwups by by guys named Dulles,  Angleton and so on,  that make what HRC did pale in comparison.  Can't wait to read the rest of the book.

[James Arryn]

Just now, maarsen said:

I have just started reading a book called Code Warriors about the beginnings of the NSA.  In the first chapter alone are enough major screwups by by guys named Dulles,  Angleton and so on,  that make what HRC did pale in comparison.  Can't wait to read the rest of the book.

The Dulles Brothers are fucking evil, though.

[maarsen]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

The Dulles Brothers are fucking evil, though.

From the book, Allan comes across as an incompetent boob. Still on an early chapter though. 

[James Arryn]

Just now, maarsen said:

From the book, Allan comes across as an incompetent boob. Still on an early chapter though. 

Well, I don't want to spoil it. Let me know when you finish and we can rant together. 

[maarsen]

I picked up the book because of an interest in codes and code breaking. But yeah we can rant about the Dulles  brothers sometime.

[butterbumps!]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, Trump's daughter said her father is a feminist. What the fuck is that nonsense?

oh yea, that's been happening for ages-- she's been excusing and denying his misogyny all along that I think it might be accurate to call her a sexist/ misogynist at this point as well.  My view is basically that Ivanka is the same shameless scum her father is, but in a sweeter-smelling package (that sweet-smelling image is basically the foundation of her "company"-- it's pretty much all about the image of success, specifically capitalizing on a very safe, insubstantial, uncontroversial, sanitized idea of "women's empowerment yay!").   The fact that she's one of the major drivers/ advisors of Trump's campaign, and persistently inseparable from the Trump family brand, combined with the fact that she's been branding herself for a decade as a supposedly strong, accomplished role model for women, renders her fair game for such critique in my view.   I think more people should be calling her out on this sort of thing.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

oh yea, that's been happening for ages-- she's been excusing and denying his misogyny all along that I think it might be accurate to call her a sexist/ misogynist at this point as well.  My view is basically that Ivanka is the same shameless scum her father is, but in a sweeter-smelling package (that sweet-smelling image is basically the foundation of her "company"-- it's pretty much all about the image of success, specifically capitalizing on a very safe, insubstantial, uncontroversial, sanitized idea of "women's empowerment yay!").   The fact that she's one of the major drivers/ advisors of Trump's campaign, and persistently inseparable from the Trump family brand, combined with the fact that she's been branding herself for a decade as a supposedly strong, accomplished role model for women, renders her fair game for such critique in my view.   I think more people should be calling her out on this sort of thing.

Your worst nightmare?

[Shryke]

8 hours ago, BloodRider said:

I dunno.  She did fuck up here.  And it's no small fuck up.  I say that not thinking it is a criminal fuck up, but I also think she deserved to be read the riot act.  Perhaps it would have behooved him to do the same for all the other SoS who also screwed the pooch, and then to broaden the discussion to the many high and low level actors who are quite caviler about such things.  And perhaps even make a plea for everyone to clean up their damn act.  But I think there was also a bit of show in there so maybe he could claim a bit of distance.

But it is hard to get around the fact that she did drop the ball about something that is pretty important.  And while it may have been in one of her blind spots, and it is reasonable to see why she has these blind spots, we, as a nation, probably should not continue to do this. 

Are you perhaps referring to the fact that maybe we should not make examples of people when the failings are institutional?  If so, I can get behind that.  But still, I think he had to really be harsh, and by doing so, he ultimately did Clinton some good.

It doesn't matter if she fucked up or not. The point is why is the FBI director holding a huge press conference in an official capacity to say it? He's not bringing charges, so wtf does the rest of this shit have to do with his job as, you know, FBI Director?

Like, he's law enforcement holding an official press conference where he spends most of the time talking about matters not actually related to his actual job here which is to pursue criminal matters. And he's already admitted there's none of that. If no charges are going to be brought, it's not his place to say anything else. His job is related to whether she broke the law or not, not whether what she did broke some internal government rules that aren't actually actionable by the FBI itself or whether she's a shitty person or whether she picks her nose and eats it. He's not the fucking enforcer of internal government rules or the official judge of characters, he's fucking law enforcement. Law enforcement is not supposed to be sticking their head into political matters without, you know, some indictments or something. They are not supposed to be publicly casting judgement on a candidate's character in an official capacity. You know, not trying to use their position to influence elections.

Like, how is this not the FBI Director sticking his hands into the political arena well outside his jurisdiction? This is seriously fucked up and if it wasn't Clinton alot more people would be fucking noticing that.

It's not about whether or not Clinton did something that was against the rules, it's about why the FBI Director feels it's his place to call her out on something that's not part of his only actual connection to this issue (ie - criminal charges). In a fucking public, nationally televised press conference.

 

Again, this is like the Chief of the Police coming out and saying "We aren't charging this current candidate for Mayor with any crimes, but boy, lemme stand up here and tell you how awful they are while I'm here".

[Jace, Extat]

On 7/6/2016 at 11:45 PM, Shryke said:

It doesn't matter if she fucked up or not. The point is why is the FBI director holding a huge press conference in an official capacity to say it? He's not bringing charges, so wtf does the rest of this shit have to do with his job as, you know, FBI Director?

Like, he's law enforcement holding an official press conference where he spends most of the time talking about matters not actually related to his actual job here which is to pursue criminal matters. And he's already admitted there's none of that. If no charges are going to be brought, it's not his place to say anything else. His job is related to whether she broke the law or not, not whether what she did broke some internal government rules that aren't actually actionable by the FBI itself or whether she's a shitty person or whether she picks her nose and eats it. He's not the fucking enforcer of internal government rules or the official judge of characters, he's fucking law enforcement. Law enforcement is not supposed to be sticking their head into political matters without, you know, some indictments or something. They are not supposed to be publicly casting judgement on a candidate's character in an official capacity. You know, not trying to use their position to influence elections.

Like, how is this not the FBI Director sticking his hands into the political arena well outside his jurisdiction? This is seriously fucked up and if it wasn't Clinton alot more people would be fucking noticing that.

It's not about whether or not Clinton did something that was against the rules, it's about why the FBI Director feels it's his place to call her out on something that's not part of his only actual connection to this issue (ie - criminal charges). In a fucking public, nationally televised press conference.

 

Again, this is like the Chief of the Police coming out and saying "We aren't charging this current candidate for Mayor with any crimes, but boy, lemme stand up here and tell you how awful they are while I'm here".

Well said.

[TrackerNeil]

8 hours ago, Shryke said:

Like, how is this not the FBI Director sticking his hands into the political arena well outside his jurisdiction? This is seriously fucked up and if it wasn't Clinton alot more people would be fucking noticing that.

It's not about whether or not Clinton did something that was against the rules, it's about why the FBI Director feels it's his place to call her out on something that's not part of his only actual connection to this issue (ie - criminal charges). In a fucking public, nationally televised press conference.

Yeah, I wasn't happy about this either, but I take consolation in my belief that this probably changed nothing in the minds of most voters. The notion of Hillary Clinton's evil ways is something eternal in the minds of Americans, and even if Comey had declared her Baelor the Blessed come again they'd still think her untrustworthy.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 hours ago, Shryke said:

It doesn't matter if she fucked up or not. The point is why is the FBI director holding a huge press conference in an official capacity to say it? He's not bringing charges, so wtf does the rest of this shit have to do with his job as, you know, FBI Director?

Like, he's law enforcement holding an official press conference where he spends most of the time talking about matters not actually related to his actual job here which is to pursue criminal matters. And he's already admitted there's none of that. If no charges are going to be brought, it's not his place to say anything else. His job is related to whether she broke the law or not, not whether what she did broke some internal government rules that aren't actually actionable by the FBI itself or whether she's a shitty person or whether she picks her nose and eats it. He's not the fucking enforcer of internal government rules or the official judge of characters, he's fucking law enforcement. Law enforcement is not supposed to be sticking their head into political matters without, you know, some indictments or something. They are not supposed to be publicly casting judgement on a candidate's character in an official capacity. You know, not trying to use their position to influence elections.

Like, how is this not the FBI Director sticking his hands into the political arena well outside his jurisdiction? This is seriously fucked up and if it wasn't Clinton alot more people would be fucking noticing that.

It's not about whether or not Clinton did something that was against the rules, it's about why the FBI Director feels it's his place to call her out on something that's not part of his only actual connection to this issue (ie - criminal charges). In a fucking public, nationally televised press conference.

 

Again, this is like the Chief of the Police coming out and saying "We aren't charging this current candidate for Mayor with any crimes, but boy, lemme stand up here and tell you how awful they are while I'm here".

I think he was justifing the time and detail used in the course of the investigation.  Saying, we found things that were problematic and we had to spend time looking at closely but nothing that rose to the standard that would allow criminal charges to be brought.  It was, to some extent, to show that the FBI did a detailed and careful investigation to attempt to preemptively disarm the consipracy theorists who were going to start crowing when the no charge decision was announced. 

It allowed moderates details to tell the conspiracy nuts why they were being nuts.

[Tywin et al.]

16 hours ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Ever since I heard it, Gingrich was going to be the winner. He's one of the only people who would be willing to do it (most other republicans, IMO, see Trump as a sinking ship and don't want to die on this hill) and Gingrich is both incredibly popular amongst the Limbaugh conspiracy theorist republicans and an incredible asshole. 

Agreed. He has nothing to lose, no conscience what so ever, and is probably the only person who would advocate for most of Trump's agenda. 

Trump will need several food testers though. 

16 hours ago, Swordfish said:

So what?  The speech, overall, was pretty much as middle of the road politically as you can get without distorting or ignoring  the facts.  

Like that will happen. 

[Tywin et al.]

28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 It allowed moderates details to tell the conspiracy nuts why they were being nuts.

Like that's had it's intended effect, if in fact that was the purpose of his extended comments. Republicans didn't get the result they wanted, so now Comey and Lynch have been called to testify in front of Congress. 

[James Arryn]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Like that's had it's intended effect, if in fact that was the purpose of his extended comments. Republicans didn't get the result they wanted, so now Comey and Lynch have been called to testify in front of Congress. 

...which, given even a modicum of foresight, might explain why they were so careful in their press conference?

[BloodRider]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think he was justifing the time and detail used in the course of the investigation.  Saying, we found things that were problematic and we had to spend time looking at closing but nothing that rose to the standard that would allow criminal charges to be brought.  It was, to some extent, to show that the FBI did a detailed and careful investigation to attempt to preemptively disarm the consipracy theorists who were going to start crowing when the no charge decision was announced. 

It allowed moderates details to tell the conspiracy nuts why they were being nuts.

Much as I hate to agree with Scot, what he said.    This is what I meant when I said I thought it did Clinton some good.  If he hadn't have done this it would have looked like he was trying to fly under the RADAR.

[BloodRider]

44 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Like that's had it's intended effect, if in fact that was the purpose of his extended comments. Republicans didn't get the result they wanted, so now Comey and Lynch have been called to testify in front of Congress. 

Did they really?

[Tywin et al.]

12 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

Did they really?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/06/fbis-comey-invited-to-testify-before-congress-on-clinton-probe/

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think he was justifing the time and detail used in the course of the investigation.  Saying, we found things that were problematic and we had to spend time looking at closely but nothing that rose to the standard that would allow criminal charges to be brought.  It was, to some extent, to show that the FBI did a detailed and careful investigation to attempt to preemptively disarm the consipracy theorists who were going to start crowing when the no charge decision was announced. 

It allowed moderates details to tell the conspiracy nuts why they were being nuts.

Except the current congressional hearing thingy he's in right now puts the lie to this idea.

Now that they are forcing the issue, he's had to say she didn't lie to the FBI, it wasn't gross negligence and a whole bunch of other shit that walks back the impression alot of people got from his press conference. They forced his hand by making the questions straightforward and suddenly there's alot different tone to the whole thing. Congressional Republicans shooting themselves in the foot as usual. They've done a decent job here of deflating this story by forcing Comey to be more clear in his language.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Congressional Republicans have all the political skill of old plow horses.  This is not a shock.